Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The CESTAT held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as Online Information Data and Access Retrieval (OIDAR) services. The appellant performed activities like copyediting, typesetting, formatting, proofreading, graphic designing, indexing, and coding on data provided by a foreign entity, without owning or transferring the data. As the appellant did not provide access or retrieval of owned data, the services did not fall under OIDAR. The appellant's services qualified as exports, entitling them to a refund u/r 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.